Daron Chau

Professor Rex Krueger

Writing 10, Section 02

October 21, 2012

The Progression in Genetic Engineering

As we look into the history of genetic engineering and focus on problems that has

have accumulated, we note that society is continually being affected. With the human

population increasing throughout history, people needed a way to prevent food shortages.

This drive to obtain better agricultural yields gave rise to genetic engineering. With

genetic engineering, one can modify an organism’s genetic code and change the way an

organism it functions. Because of genetics, scientists are able to modify plants and

animals to produce more crops that live longer, contain more nutrition, and have

medicinal properties. However, people have portrayed genetically modified foods as

potentially dangerous to people’s health and to the environment. As of now genetically

modified organisms, or GMOs, have become widely used in 1st world countries for

agricultural usages, but with our current state of affairs, society has constantly demanded

tighter regulations in GM products.

The term genetic engineering has only been around for several decades, but the

idea of its usages, like hybridization, came from ancient times. A well-known example of

hybridization was Gregor Mendel’s pea experiments. In the late 1800s, Mendel

introduced the idea of genetic inheritance by accurately predicting the off-spring’s

physical trait when he hybridized two different pea plants. He Mendel showed that he can

could control, to a large degree, the traits of organisms, which was why people refer to

him as the father of genetics. In the article written byhis article, Bill Ganzel, he

explainsed the importance of Mendel's work on hybridization for agriculture later in the

1930s. Mendel's work influenced many Midwestern farmers, especially during the Great

Depression, to hybridize corn (Bill). By hybridizing different types of corn, farmers were

able to obtain five times more bushels per acre than from non-hybrids, a roughly 20 to

100 bushels per acre increase. Although hybridization and genetic engineering are two

distinct techniques, genetic engineering directly inserts foreign genes inside an

organism's genome, while hybridization artificially selects two similar species with the

desired traits for fertilization. In a sense genetic engineering is a more intricate and

complicated form of hybridization, and it has an infinite amount of room to grow and

flourish with each passing year.

It was not until the discovery of the DNA helix in 1954, by James D. Watson and

Francis Crick, that geneticists began to understand the functions of how genes were

regulated and expressed. From the book Essential Cell Biology, Dr. Bruce Alberts, Dr.

Dennis Bray, and their fellow doctorate peers explained how the discovery of the DNA

helix led to the realization of gene regulation and its mechanisms. The three-dimensional

structure of DNA was crucial to the emergence of genetic engineering simply because the

model provided insight on “how [DNA was] able to store hereditary information”

(Alberts 173). By knowing the mechanisms of gene expression, scientists were able to

take a step further in hybridization. Instead of crossbreeding favorable traits together

through fertilization, scientists were now able to genetically insert foreign genes into any

genome, a technique known as genetic engineering. Organisms that contain transgenic

genes were a byproduct of genetic engineering. In the article written by Ali M. Ardekani,

it explained the widespread growth of GMOs from 1996 to 2011 and the issues that had

risen in response. “At present, more than 148 million hectares of farmland are under

cultivation for biotech crops throughout the world” (Ardekani 2). This widespread growth

since 1996 showed an increase of interest in genetically modified organisms. However as

more crops become genetically modified, people began to inquire the safety in GMOs

and the actual benefits they bring to the world.

One of the major events that brought skepticism to public attention on GMOs was

the problem with the genetically modified Bt cotton in China that was heavily planted

since 1997. In 2001, a study was conducted by H. Cheng and other Chinese scientists to

evaluate the presence of the Bt gene in honey produced by bees using Bt cotton. Because

China is a major produce of cotton, supplying about 20% of the world's supply, they

needed to genetically modify their cotton for insect pest control. A genetically modified

cotton that expressed the gene Bacillus thuringiensis, that produces the protein toxin

Cry1A, was the solution to prevent the cotton bollworm, “a major pest in Chinese cotton

production” (Cheng 1) from destroying the cotton plantation. This cotton is formally

known as Bt cotton. “Since cotton is one of the major honey-source plants, it [raised]

concerns in the international trade whether there [were] alien DNA sequences contained

in honey” (Cheng 1). By using the following techniques Polymerase Chain Reaction,

PCR, and electrophoresis, the Cheng and his fellow Chinese scientists were able to

conclude that the Bt gene was present in the honey made from the nectar of Bt cotton and

that the Bt gene was absent in the honey made from natural cotton. The importance of

PCR allowed the specific DNA sequence of interest to be isolated and replicated

tremendously. This specific DNA sequence was chosen because the region was known to

either contain the Bt gene or not. Lastly the technique electrophoresis revealed whether

the gene Bt was within the DNA sequence by separating the proteins by size. Although

the Bt gene was found in honey made from using Bt cotton, it is important to note that

“there is no evidence of mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer from digested foods to

enteric epithelium cells” (Cheng 4). Horizontal gene transfer is the relocation of a

specific gene from one organism's genome to a distinctively different organism genome.

As for the epithelium cells, they are the cells that surround the lining of our intestines and

stomach, which come into direct contact with the Bt gene. The findings, however, caused

“the Chinese regulatory authority in 2002 [to issue] 17 GM products” (Cheng 4) to be

labeled for international trade instead of banning each product all together. The actions

taken by the Chinese had created a chain reaction on further regulations on GM products

by labeling. However many anti-GM consumers criticized claimed that the potential

detrimental effects of transgenic genes should be sufficient reasons to ban all GM

products.

Although scientific studies such as the one above can prove individual GM

products to pass onto the world market, many have been funded entirely by private

companies that are for the use of GMOs. "The majority of research experiments on

transgenic [organisms] are being performed by the private sector" (Ardekani 6), which

"causes independent scientists [to] urgently follow strict precautionary approaches in

designing experiments on GMOs" (Ardekani 6). This further adds to the skepticism

towards GMOs as people doubt whether or not the studies have been bias. Because these

studies have to follow strict guidelines, it is difficult for the public to accept because such

guidelines were meant to support GM products. This meant that the studies were

conducted in order to allow genetically modified products to enter into the food market,

not for meeting safety food standards. Many people with this mindset questioned whether

the data provided by these extensive studies were was reliable. Even if these studies were

conducted for the purpose of health safety standards, people would still be hesitant to

accept its accuracy and validity. Today people have a hard time accepting studies that

have proven certain GM produces to be safe, and a main reason for this phenomenon is

because of the possibility of deception.

Another issue with GMO's brought to public attention is that GMO's can cause

possible allergic reactions to certain people. In the article “ Consumers With Allergic

Reaction To Food” by Galina Gaivoronskaia, it talks about how many people have had

concerns “about new allergens entering the food chain with the introduction of GM

foods” (Gaivoronskaia 3). Because GM food production has been increasing, more

people are worrying about the safety of their health, and the safety of others. “It

[appeared] that in recent years, more individuals have become allergic, [and] some

analysts have interpreted these trends to be a result of" (Gaivoronskaia 3) eating GM

foods. Despite the numbers of allergic reactions associated with GM foods that have gone

upincreased, there were too many confounding variables to associate a direct cause and

effect relationship. Although there was no direct correlation between GM foods to the

causation of an allergic reaction, people could not ignore the possibility some sort of

relationship. This uncertainty is a factor in regulating genetically modified organisms

because people feel that it is their responsibility to prevent their loved ones from harm.

On the other hand, genetic engineering “can help to remove food allergens from existing

foods, which is a benefit for allergic individuals” (Gaivoronskaia 3). With the use of

genetic engineering, there are currently specific foods like GM peanuts that people can

eat without having an allergic reaction. This method can allow allergy-prone people to

enjoy their foods without spending money on medications. Because GMOs can both help

and hurt people with certain allergies, it is a current issue on whether banning GMOs will

benefit society's safety, or cause a certain section of allergy-prone people to suffer.

Lastly, many critics argued that GM products could potentially have a detrimental

effect on the surrounding environment. In the article written by Dr. Margaret Mellon, and

Dr. Jane Rissler, it talked about the negative impacts genetically modified corn, Bt corn,

could have had on the monarch population if it wasn't for criticisms against it. In 2000, Bt

corn was widely planted across the Midwest, despite having prior knowledge “that pollen

from Bt corn could kill the larvae of monarch butterflies” (Mellon). People were outraged

at the approval of Bt corn and had forced the government to conduct research on the

toxicity of several different Bt corn. In 2001, the research concluded that only one type of

Bt corn was safe enough, while the rest proved too lethal for the monarch butterfly. This

incident caused many people to doubt the benefits of GM products and had caused tighter

regulations and test assessments before a GM product can be fed or grown in the

environment. These regulations have slowed the growth of genetic engineering as all GM

products have to meet standard safety requirements for humans and the environment

before it is introduced into society.

Genetically modified foods have continued to impose larger influences in the

world as time progresses. Although GM products have greatly increased agricultural

yields, critics still argue that the GM products poses greater harm than good such as

provoking allergic reactions, and damaging the environment. Despite these harsh

criticisms and tighter regulations, GM foods are still being made because of its potential

benefits to the world. Many would say that the benefits would greatly outweigh the

consequences. However society has yet to figure out an answer to this growing sector,

leaving a social issue unsolved.

Daron:

This paper is FULL of interesting ideas and good research. Your thoughts are also mostly

well organized. The problem is that you don’t have a thesis that answers the assignment. I

don’t know what major events or ideas led us to where we are now. You never summarize

your major points in the intro, so every point comes as a surprise to the reader rather than

being the logical continuation of a central claim. Some of your later paragraphs also don’t

necessarily seem to be about history. There are many places here where you have way too

much scientific detail that the reader doesn’t need to get the point. Since this paper is too

long anyway, I expect these sections trimmed down to the essentials.

You need to revise this, but it doesn’t need to be a big project. Mainly, you need a thesis

that address the assignment and you need to make sure that each paragraph is a logical

extension of that thesis.

B-

--Rex

Daron Chau

Professor Rex Krueger

Writing 10, Section 02

November 11, 2012

The Progression in Genetic Engineering

As we look into the history of genetic engineering, society continually have has

found it hard to accept that genetically modified foods or products have been more

beneficial in providing food per hectare of land either by prolonging agricultural life or

simply increasing harvest amounts then foods that are naturally grown. The way

genetically modified foods, also called GMFs, is are made is by genetically inserting

foreign DNA, the code that dictates an organism’s life, into the host’s DNA in hope that

the host would accept the foreign DNA as its own. This process could, in theory, apply to

humans who consume GMFs. It is because of this possibility that many people have

criticized that genetically modified foods could be detrimental to people who consume

them and to the environment of whichthat GMFs are grown in. As of now, genetically

modified foods have become widely used in 1st firstworld countries for agricultural

usages and society has demanded more attention towards regulating GMFs. The reason

why people have opposed GMFs today is because of the modified Bt cotton in China, the

public skepticism on privately funded GMF research and studies in Iran, the peanut

allergy provoked by GMFs, the monarch butterfly incident in Midwestern U.S, and the

modified Bt corn and the farming techniques used in the U.S.

One of the major events that brought skepticism to public attention on GMFs was

the problem with the genetically modified Bt cotton in China that was heavily planted

since 1997. In 2001, a study was conducted by H. Cheng and other Chinese scientists to

evaluate the presence of the Bt gene in honey produced by bees using Bt. Their article

Isolation And PCR Detection Of Foreign DNA Sequences In Bee Honey Raised On

Genetically Modified Bt (Cry1ac) Cotton proved foreign genes can be transmitted

between organisms by using various scientific techniques. Because China is a major

producer of cotton, supplying about 20% of the world's supply, they needed to genetically

modify their cotton for insect pest control. In response to the bull-worm pest, “a major

pest in Chinese cotton production”, Chinese genetic engineers have genetically inserted

the Bt gene, also known as Bacillus thuringeinsis, into the cotton’s DNA (Cheng 1). The

Bt gene thus allowed the cotton, now known as Bt cotton, to produce the protein toxin

Cry1A to fight off the bull-worm and thus the Bt cotton lived longer. “Since cotton is one

of the major honey-source plants, it [raised] concerns in the international trade whether

there [were] alien DNA sequences contained in honey” (Cheng 1). By using the following

techniques Polymerase Chain Reaction, PCR, and electrophoresis, the Cheng and his

fellow Chinese scientists were able to conclude that the Bt gene was present in the honey

made from the nectar of Bt cotton and that the Bt gene was absent in the honey made

from natural cotton. Although the Bt gene was found in honey made from using Bt

cotton, Cheng stated in his study that “there [was] no evidence of mechanisms” for the Bt

gene in honey to “transfer from digested foods to” our cells surrounding our intestines

(Cheng 4). The findings, however, caused “the Chinese regulatory authority in 2002 [to

issue] 17 GM products” to be labeled for international trade instead of banning each

product all together (Cheng 4). The actions taken by the Chinese had created a chain

reaction because the European Union and the U.S. have adopted similar actions. However

many anti-GM consumers criticized that the potential detrimental effects of transgenic

genes, genes that can be transferred from one organism to another should be sufficient

reasons to ban all genetically modified, or GM, products.

Many people in the have doubt the reliability and validity in GMF research

conducted for safety because of Iran’s privately funded research. Although scientific

studies such as the one above can prove individual GM products to pass onto the world

market as being safe for its consumers, many have been funded entirely by private

companies that want to put their GMFs out into the market. In Ardekani M. Ali’s article,

it stated that in Iran "the majority of research experiments on transgenic [organisms] are

being performed by the private sector,” which "causes independent scientists [to] urgently

follow strict precautionary approaches in designing experiments on GMFs" (Ardekani 6).

Research funded by private companies that want to pass their products adds to the

skepticism towards GMFs as people doubt whether or not the studies have been biased.

Because these studies have to follow strict guidelines, it is difficult for the public to

accept because such guidelines were meant to support GM products. These studies were

conducted in order to allow genetically modified products to enter into the food market,

not for meeting safety food standards. Many people with this mindset questioned whether

the data provided by these extensive studies were reliable. Even if these studies were

conducted for the purpose of health safety standards, people would still be hesitant to

accept its accuracy and validity. Today people have a hard time accepting studies that

have proven certain GM produces to be safe, and a main reason for this phenomenon is

because of the possibility of deception.

Another issue with GMF's brought to public attention is that GMF's can cause

possible allergic reactions to certain people. In the article “Consumers With Allergic

Reaction To Food” by Galina Gaivoronskaia, it the author talks about how many people

have had concerns “about new allergens entering the food chain with the introduction of

GM foods” (Gaivoronskaia 3). Because GM food production has been increasing, more

people are worrying about the safety of their health, and the safety of others. “It

[appeared] that in recent years, more individuals have become allergic, [and] some

analysts have interpreted these trends to be a result of" eating GM foods (Gaivoronskaia

3). Despite the numbers of allergic reactions associated with GM foods that have

increased, there were too many confounding variables to associate a direct cause and

effect relationship. Although there was no direct correlation between genetically modified

foods to the causation of an allergic reaction, people could not ignore the possibility some

sort of relationship. This uncertainty is a factor in regulating genetically modified foods

because people feel that it is their responsibility to prevent their loved ones from harm.

On the other hand, genetic engineering “can help to remove food allergens from existing

foods, which is a benefit for allergic individuals” (Gaivoronskaia 3). With the use of

genetic engineering, there are currently specific foods like GM peanuts that people can

eat without having an allergic reaction. This method can allow allergy-prone people to

enjoy their foods without spending money on medications. Because genetically modified

foods can both help and hurt people with certain allergies, it is a current issue on whether

banning GMFs will benefit society's safety, or cause a certain section of allergy-prone

people to suffer.

The potential monarch butterfly massacre in 2000 is yet another event that caused

many GMF oppositions to demand more regulation on GM products. In Dr. Margaret

Mellon, and Dr. Jane Rissler’s article Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified

Food Crops, it talked about the negative impacts genetically modified corn, Bt corn,

could have had on the monarch population if it wasn't for criticisms against it. In 2000, Bt

corn was widely planted across the Midwest in the U.S., despite having prior knowledge

“that pollen from Bt corn could kill the larvae of monarch butterflies” (Mellon 1). People

were outraged at the approval of Bt corn and had forced the government to conduct

research on the toxicity of several different Bt corn. In 2001, the research concluded that

only one type of Bt corn was safe enough, while the rest proved too lethal for the

monarch butterfly. This incident caused many people to doubt the benefits of GM

products and had caused tighter regulations and test assessments before a genetically

modified product can be fed or grown in the environment. These regulations have slowed

the growth of genetic engineering as all GM products have to meet standard safety

requirements for humans and the environment before it is introduced into society.

However even if these GM products have been passed as safe to consume through more

rigorous experiments, the public have shown to be skeptical because of the monarch

butterfly incident.

Farmers in the U.S have avoided using safer planting techniques on genetically

modified foods because…. This contributed to more GMF-oppositions because not all

farmers follow safer planting techniques when dealing with GMFs. In Nicholas A.

Linacre, and Thompson J. Colin’s article Dynamics Of Insect Resistance In Bt-Corn,

farmers have had to practice safer planting techniques according to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, requirements. However, one of the methods that

farmers are required to use is postponing their planting for 10 years. Thus "it [seemed]

unlikely that farmers will plant 20% of their fields with non-Bt-born when they have to

wait 10 years" (Linacre 7). Because of this 10 year period, many independent farmers

would become bankrupt. This also applies to newly established big-scale farmers that

have not obtained enough funds to sustain their own growth. Because of these problems,

many farmers have chosen to ignore the EPA’s requirement and plant their GMFs using

their personal techniques, which could be more of a hazard. These farming mal-practices

have caused public distrust in genetically modified foods because of the lack of safety

techniques farmers purposely avoided to use.

Genetic engineering and its food products have been criticized as potentially

unsafe and misleading due to the studies conducted by Dr. Cheng in 2001, privately

funded research in Iran, the assumed peanut allergy correlation, the potential mistakes

conducted on the monarch butterfly in Midwestern U.S., and the malpractices U.S.

farmers have used to plant their GM crops. All of these events have contributed to the

widespread opposition towards GMFs and that many people have pushed for tighter

regulation or total removal of GMFs. The issue here is that GMFs are a necessity to

providing more food and health benefits to society and yet many people reject GMFs

because they have the possibility to inadvertently transmit harmful genetic material into

humans. These constant conflicts between the benefits and flaws on GMFs, along with

the events listed above, have contributed to the issue of genetic engineering we have

today.

Daron:

A fine revision that tackles the most important problems with the first version. This has a

thesis, a focus on history, and good organization. The only place this paper suffers is

wordy or awkward sentences, some proofreading issues and some quotes without

introductions. These are little issues but they do matter.

Good work overall.

A-

--Rex

Works Cited

Gaivoronskaia, Galina, and Bjorn Hvinden. "Consumers With Allergic Reaction

To Food." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.6 (2006): 702-730. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

H. Cheng, W. Jin, H. Wu, F. Wang, C. You, Y. Peng, and S. Jia. "Isolation And

PCR Detection Of Foreign DNA Sequences In Bee Honey Raised On Genetically

Modified Bt (Cry1ac) Cotton." Food & Bioproducts Processing: Transactions Of The

Institution Of Chemical Engineers Part C 85.1 (2007): 141-145. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Maghari, Behrokh Mohajer, and Ali M. Ardekani. "Genetically Modified Foods

And Social Concerns." Avicenna Journal Of Medical Biotechnology 3.3 (2011): 109-

117. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Reinhardt, Claudia, and Ganzel, Bill. “The Science of Hybrids.” The Ganzel

Group. 2003. Web. 21 Oct 2012

Mellon, Margaret, and Rissler, Jane. “Environmental Effects of Genetically

Modified Food Crops.” Union of Concerned Scientists (2003): Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Linacre, Nicholas A., and Colin J. Thompson. Dynamics Of Insect Resistance In

Bt-Corn." Ecological Modelling 171.3 (2004): 271. Academic Search Complete. Web.

31 Oct. 2012.